But as Bush's 60-day, 60-city tour to sell the accounts drew to a close, what was evident on Capitol Hill was the contrast between Republican frustration in the committee room and glee among a large contingent of Democrats at a noisy union-led anti-privatization rally in a sunny park across the street.

Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, outlined a process over the next two to three months that will force the high-powered Republicans on his panel to accept benefit cuts and tax increases necessary to make the giant retirement program permanently solvent, while including the private accounts that Bush and most of his party want but Democrats steadfastly oppose.

Two hours later, the daunting odds that the plainspoken Iowa farmer faces were made obvious. Two Democrats who had made friendly gestures of bipartisanship in the hearing room -- Max Baucus of Montana and Ron Wyden of Oregon -- joined the rally across the street vowing to save Social Security from Bush's devices.

Elementary school in Oakland opens time capsule from 1927San Francisco Chronicle

Brides of March walk through San FranciscoSan Francisco Chronicle

WildCare rescues Western scrub jay from rodent glue trapWildCare

The Regulars: The CarpenterJessica Christian

Massive fire in San Francisco's North BeachDavid Essling

Suggesting that Bush should extend his tour, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., told the crowd, "If he's going out to push for privatization, let's help him pack!"

Grassley admitted that even if he pushed a bill out of his committee on a party-line vote -- which is anything but certain, given the opposition by at least one Republican, Olympia Snowe of Maine -- it could fail on the floor unless a handful of Democrats joined in.

"I can be candid with you," Grassley told reporters after the hearing. "I'm doing what can I do to move this process along, and I could fail. And if we don't get some Democratic support, obviously I do fail."

Related Stories

He said he hoped the process would eventually lure some Democrats. "I want to take advantage of every avenue I have to move the ball along, and I'm doing it quite honestly in hopes that somewheres along the line there's either altruistic Democrats that feel they want to do something about future generations, or there may be political pressure to do more, or who knows what, " he said.

Yet as Bush's cross-country tour has failed to generate momentum, Senate Republicans are deeply divided about the best route forward. Democratic leaders have said they are willing to discuss solvency but refuse to do so until Bush drops private accounts.

"We've hit a wall," said Sen. Lindsay Graham, a South Carolina Republican sponsoring private-account legislation and who has been meeting with a handful of moderate Democrats on Social Security.

Those conversations have led Graham to conclude that Bush must lay out the specifics of a Social Security overhaul, which necessarily would include unpleasant benefit cuts and possibly tax increases to restore solvency, and assuredly trillions of dollars in transition borrowing to finance private accounts.

"Democrats are united around the idea that accounts should not destroy the function of Social Security," Graham said. "They're united around the idea that accounts shouldn't blow a hole in the deficit. They're not united around the idea that younger workers shouldn't have some choices, innovation. I am totally convinced that there are Democrats who would accept new ideas."

One of these is Kent Conrad of North Dakota, dubbed Kent "Kernel" Conrad for his suggestion, repeated Tuesday, that there is a "kernel of a good idea" in private accounts. Conrad reiterated at the hearing, however, that he could not stomach large increases in borrowing to finance accounts.

If Bush proposed a plan, Graham acknowledged that it would be attacked, but he suggested that Bush would then have "the moral authority" to challenge Democrats to come up with their own ideas to restore the program. At that point, Graham said, "I believe it will be untenable for the Democratic Party .. . just to tell us all: Take a hike. I don't think they can survive politically. "

If Bush lays out specific options, that will just give Democrats a target to attack, Grassley said.

"You don't get anything done here by tearing down a plan," he said. "You get things done around here by building a plan."

Grassley is working closely with the White House, but he wants to focus the hearing on options that the Social Security actuary has said would sustain the program's finances not just for 75 years but beyond, planning to have legislation ready by June or July.

Grassley has veered, to the consternation of many conservatives, to solvency issues rather than private accounts.

"You cannot advance this with a blood-and-guts approach that says, 'Oh, gee, we're going to raise your taxes, and we're going to cut your benefits,' " he said. "That's not how we got here. We got here by talking about personal accounts. That's what people campaigned on."

Ferrara continued his pleadings after the hearing to Grassley, who responded, "You're worrying about the next election and forgetting about the next generation."

Some of the options, including Ferrara's, examined by the committee include much larger private accounts than the four percentage points of Social Security payroll taxes Bush proposed.

Another, by Peter Orzag of the Brookings Institution, has no private accounts and relies largely on tax increases. Republicans said they suspected that was the plan Democrats favored.

Grassley focused most of his attention on a "progressive indexing" plan by financier Robert Pozen that would reduce future benefits for middle- and upper-income retirees while maintaining promised benefits for low-wage workers. The change would lower costs and could be used with or without accounts.

Democrats and many opposition groups have attacked the idea, saying it would undermine support for Social Security by middle- and upper-income workers.

Social Security is currently a pay-as-you-go system, where current workers' payroll taxes pay benefits for current retirees. Right now, the system is producing large surpluses, as the 76 million-strong Baby Boom generation is in its peak earnings years. The government is spending the money, as it has for years, and in exchange is depositing bonds in the Social Security trust fund. To redeem the bonds, the government will have to raise taxes, reduce spending or borrow.

The financial situation will begin to reverse in three years, when the first Boomers begin to retire. By 2018, payroll taxes will no longer cover benefits, and the deficits will continue widening in the ensuing years, totaling $4 trillion over 75 years, and much more beyond that.

Social Security at a glance

Finances

Workers and employers pay payroll taxes into the system, which uses the money to pay a monthly benefit to retirees.

Issue

As Baby Boomers become eligible for Social Security, the amount of payroll taxes collected won't be enough to pay the full cost of retirement benefits. Social Security actuaries estimate that in 2017 the cost of benefits will exceed the amount raised in taxes.

What happens then

The surplus in payroll taxes now being collected is represented by bonds placed in the Social Security trust fund. These bonds are to cover full benefits through 2041, according to the Social Security actuarial estimates. When the bonds run out, payroll taxes still will cover almost 75 percent of the guaranteed retirement benefit.

Why people are concerned

There are two primary reasons: the future solvency of Social Security and the effects of the program on the budget. The surplus in payroll taxes is now used to pay for regular government operations. When that surplus ends as expected in 2017, the government will have to raise taxes, cut spending or borrow to redeem the trust fund bonds and pay the retirement benefit.

President Bush's idea

The president proposes that workers younger than 55 be allowed to divert a portion of their payroll taxes in private accounts, which would be invested in stocks and bonds. The White House hasn't produced a specific plan, however, and most on both sides of the debate agree that creating private accounts will not solve Social Security's long-term financial problems.